Monday, October 30, 2006

2006 National League Gold Gloves - As I see it

Defensive data has been and is being refined pretty well these days. With more and more play-by-play data making it to the mainstream, all of us are stretching the boundaries of what we require from black-box analysts. With the exception of some park factors, we are discovering that Zone Rating provides a pretty good picture of defense. Taking the zone rating and accounting for league averages, based on tens of thousands of defensive innings played, we can closely assess the number of runs saved by a defensive players as compared to his peers.

To be sure, even this data could be refined to account for parks better - Fenway’s Green Monster is a tremendous issue - and handedness of batters - NOT handedness of pitchers - to tune the picture a bit better, but the data you will read will be very close to any refined data. Very close. The basic methodology for this work is here. You can also read more on where we are headed with Park Factors by reading Rally’s latest work.

I have tweaked this for chances per inning from the original data, so the chances assumed here may be slightly higher/lower, but if you did the same work from the referenced article, you’d find your results would be within a run or two of what I post. And really, the most important thing I do here is provide you with the tools to evaluate defense on your own, without me doing the math. Please note, after this article, I will post some others’ work that even refines what I have done, with a comparison to what I have done. It should be exciting for you - it is for me. Most importantly, it broadens the network of individuals accurately creating the defensive evaluations, as well as allows for everyday updates. Yes, I said *every day*.

Now on with the show. Here are the leaders and trailers at every position for the National League, with some commentary where necessary. The American League results are here. In general I draw the Gold Glove qualification line at a significant number of innings - usually around 650. It would be unusual for someone playing only 650 innings to lead the league in anything, but I’m willing to give it a look.

Yadier Molina was a good defensive catcher, and amazingly, the good hitting catchers - McCann, LoDuca, Barrett and Piazza are all bringing up the rear. Maybe the old cliche rings true. Molina led in CS%, and will likely win the conventional GG award.

Scott Hatteberg must be able to “really pick it”. There’s very little variation here. Nine runs seperate #2 from #11. That says to me, skill-wise, that the difference could easily be in the chances. I don’t know who will win the real GG, but I would give it to Hatteberg. Yes, I know PUjols is a really good fielder - sure, but this season, he just didn’t make a bunch of plays above and beyond.

I really hope Harvey shows up to tell us how much Weeks improved over the last couple of months. He was at -8 RSpt at teh ASB. He held his ground, so he may have turned a corner for next year. As for the GG, I am certainly wary of awarding it to someone with less than 800 innings, so I would probably go with Jamey Carroll - plus he has the Colorado BIP issue to deal with.

Pero Feliz played as many innings as anyone else, and played them better than anyone else. He should win the GG. Given the history of the award, Rolen will win. Not on this list, but really good in 600 innings was Corey Koskie for Milwaukee. He was a +9 RSpt, and a +19 for RS/150.

If Ozzie Smith was as good as Adam Everett, he was incredible. Everett is on the verge of saving hte most runs on defense over the last 20 years. He’s truly incredible at outpacing his peers. Hanley Ramirez can be forgiven - hopefully he’ll learn and develop. There’s Eckstein, ugly arm and all, performing well. He did look very good in the NLCS, making several stops on balls I was sure would be hits.

Dave Roberts? I didn’t see that coming. He is a CF playing LF, so I can buy it. We’re expecting a park factor for Wilson in Houston, and tehre is some effect in Florida, but Willingham is a catcher, so he probably isn’t very good. Then Adam Dunn…

Juan Pierre? That’s a good-sized lead as well. Beltran, with this defense, is the best selection for MVP. Griffey hasn’t played well in CF for a few years, and while not as bad as last year, he still isn’t good. I’d play him in LF. And if BIS still has Andruw as the top CF, they should re-consider their algorithms.

Brian Giles was a good CF a few years back. With an OF of Cameron, Roberts and Giles, I am not surprised the Padres OF defense is this good. Jeromy Burnitz should retire.

I have to talk about Endy Chavez. His defense this year was incredible, and most people got to see it in Game 7 of the NLCS. Fortunately you are going to see that play a few million times over the rest of your life. He played incredibly all season, and in all three outfield positions. He totaled 264.3 innings in CF at +5 RSpt, 239.3 innings at +6 in LF, and +5 RSpt in 312.6 innings in right field. That’s +16 in 816.3 innings. His RS/150 is upwards of 25 runs. He deserves the Gold Glove over Dave Roberts.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

With as shallow as Jones' plays, isn't it likely he's getting a lot of balls other CF aren't -- which is why he looks so great according to BIS and UZR -- but plays that infielders make quite routinely. Watching him play I don't believe his range would lead to a true -10 or whatever, but I don't think he's doing the team any favors by playing so shallow.

Look at the Braves. No good defender anywhere apart from LF and 1B, the base of the spectrum. Maybe that is the reason we lost the division..Good to see ZR for once agree with anecdotal evidence. LaRoche had clocked as the worst 1Bman last year, and this year looked like he had turned it around...

Mike Jacobs wasn't great shakes this year... and even if Delgado indeed was awful last year (didn't check, just looked at his number for this year and assumed he was somewhere in that ballpark last year as well), a sucky 1B doesn't hurt you nearly as much as crappy 2b, ss and 3b... and the downgrade defensively for the Marlins at those three positions has been indisputable.

David Wright is a first baseman waiting to happen. Ditto for Miguel Cabrera.

Wow. I knew Stache's D was good, but not this good. We definitely need him back. Even with his shitty post-season, I love this guy, which is amazing since I was openly rooting for his retirement earlier this year.

As for Wright and Cabrera, well, I sincerely hope both are playing for the Mets sometime soon.

I don't if there is anyway to see ZR by month. I think he stopped playing shallow CF sometime around the ASB. I think he still plays shallow when Smoltz/Hudson pitch, and fairly deep for James/assorted junk. I also remember Andruw gettng to more balls in the second half...

Don't know if the other Mets Primates will agree with me, but I think at least part of Wright's problems are due to positioning. He's not quick enough to his backhand to be playing off the line so far. I felt like there were more basehits given up down the line than in the hole. But physical skills-wise, I think Wright looks capable of handling 3B.

I don't agree with this. Delgado was a lot better than expected. He's not a good fielder by any stretch of the imagination but he's not a problem at first.

My observations on Delgado: Above average in terms of scooping balls. Has the range of a statue - left, right, or up. I remember one line drive hit right at him, above head level. Barely got his glove up to deflect the ball.

Rask, there's no way you can platoon Durham and Stache. Durham is going to be way too expensive to be just the righthanded portion of a platoon. If I were Durham, I'd be insulted by the notion. He posted a 127 OPS+ in 2006.

One thing that might be interesting is if Durham would mind playing some in RF as well as 2b. I'm not sure he'd be up to it or if he'd even be willing to do so, but it is a thought.

It's nice to see the numbers bear out Conor Jackson's improvement in the field.

This is another bit of evidence that Arizona needs to sell high on Byrnes and Hudson this offseason. Hudson, in particular, is nowhere near one of the better 2B in the game any way you want to slice it, and is about to cost someone serious money. Byrnes is just a complete waste to Arizona in left field.

Does Wright look like that much of a butcher at third? I mean for him to be that much worse than Chad Tracy . . . wow.

Does Wright look like that much of a butcher at third? I mean for him to be that much worse than Chad Tracy . . . wow.

Wright's defense this year was bad. He allowed a lot of balls get passed by him down the thirdbase line. That was a problem in 2005 as well. What was surprising was the fact that he show diminished range towards the hole as well, something he actually did quite well in 2005. He does have the tools to be a good 3b but he's bad right now.

Great stuff, Chris. If you have time, I'd love to see So Taguchi's numbers: he's always had a very good defensive reputation, and he keeps getting inserted into games as a defensive replacement (with Duncan and Wilson on the team, maybe that's not a surprise), but this season his defense looked absolutely brutal to me--he got terrible jumps and took bad routes. And if you don't mind, maybe you could throw in Chris Duncan's numbers, just for "fun."

This is another bit of evidence that Arizona needs to sell high on Byrnes and Hudson this offseason. Hudson, in particular, is nowhere near one of the better 2B in the game any way you want to slice it, and is about to cost someone serious money. Byrnes is just a complete waste to Arizona in left field.

Hmm, if the Mets can't afford Sori or Lee, this package might make sense.

even though Dials numbers are based off of value over average positional rather than absolute across positional value, wouldn't it be fair to say that Reyes was better than Wright this year?

also, if that's true, who the #### expected that? or even could have predicted that?

also also, Jeter had a VORP of 80.5

with a 15 run swing there, Reyes ends up roughly 5 runs behind Jeter. Jeter's an excellent baserunner, but Reyes certainly might pick up a run or two there. so the argument could be made that Reyes is the best SS in NY. who could have expected that, either?

so the argument could be made that Reyes is the best SS in NY. who could have expected that, either?

So this year, in the always exciting NY infielder debate, VORP + Dial gives us

Jeter: ~75
Reyes: ~70
Cano: ~50
Wright: ~45

For me that raises two main points: (a) I vastly, vastly underestimated Reyes and Cano's capacity to mature as young players and (b) did anyone have Wright finishing last in the ever exciting NY infielder debate?

A black box? Does anyone really know what BIS uses to define plays made? Vectors is a nice answer, but I haven't seen a good explanation. Some people think it "must be better" without knowing exactly how it works (and this isn't a plane, it's baseball), so that's not good enough for me.

Regarding Weeks, his ZR shows signs of improvement over the season. It could just be small sample size blips in action, but from April 1 - June 3, over 422 innings he had a ZR of .727 and had made 16 plays fewer than an average NL 2B would have over the same opportunites. From June 4 through the end of his season, he had a ZR of .833 and made 4 plays more than average.

Is Barry Bonds the oldest guy ever to be a decent fielder?
Julio Franco's still adequate. Less recently, Honus held up nicely. Besides, I'm not convinced that Bonds is an average fielder (is that your standard for decent?).

Does anyone not like Brian Downing? He was one of my favorite players when I was growing up...

A black box? Does anyone really know what BIS uses to define plays made? Vectors is a nice answer, but I haven't seen a good explanation. Some people think it "must be better" without knowing exactly how it works (and this isn't a plane, it's baseball), so that's not good enough for me.

They divide the field into small zones based on direction and distance, then calculate the probability of the ball being turned into an out by each player. If the play is made, the other fielders are not debited. Then they add up the numbers, and center them at zero. The end. There are two main problems with the Fielding Bible numbers: The zones ("vectors") are too small in some places, and players should be debited for not making a play on a groundball, even if the play is made, which was the problem identified in MGL's original UZR by Michael Humphreys, which MGL corrected for part two of his series.

Anyone know the detail of how we get Dewan's data this year?

I'm not sure, but I believe there will only be some data in the BJ Handbook, and I think the THT Annual will have something as well.

Park effects for the Yankees right field? Abreu looks fine above and was awful (along withe Williams) for the Yankees. (Not that I wouldn't expect Williams to be awful, but perhaps he was less awful than the numbers make him look).

They divide the field into small zones based on direction and distance

How small? Do you have a chart? Are they the same as ZR? Smaller? Larger?

players should be debited for not making a play on a groundball, even if the play is made, which was the problem identified in MGL's original UZR by Michael Humphreys, which MGL corrected for part two of his series.

That's a wrong way to do it. If the play is made, no one should be debited.

That's a wrong way to do it. If the play is made, no one should be debited.

Wrong. Let's try a little example. Our shortstop, DJ, is a terrible fielder, especially going to his right (third-base side). Because of this, our third baseman, SB, has to play towards the shortstop hole. Now DJ is average on balls hit right at him or to his left, and because SB makes the plays DJ doesn't towards the third-base side, DJ ends up looking like an average fielder. But in reality, because SB has to play closer to the shortstop hole, he can't make a lot of plays down the third base line. The team suffers, but if we listen to you, DJ does not.

Also, this creates a mathematical problem in that the individual ratings will not add up to the team rating. That's something you want to avoid unless absolutely necessary.

How small? Do you have a chart? Are they the same as ZR? Smaller? Larger?

It says in the Fielding Bible. I think they said the zones were 3x3 feet -- much smaller than ZR. Or maybe it was 3x3 in the outfield, and 1x1 in the infield, I don't remember.

But in reality, because SB has to play closer to the shortstop hole, he can't make a lot of plays down the third base line.

If that were the case, why did SB have such great ZR with the Yankees?

Since a coaching staff has so much impact on positioning, I don't see the sense in penalizing a player just because his team may decide to go with a slightly abnormal defensive alignment, much like the Yankees do.

Since a coaching staff has so much impact on positioning, I don't see the sense in penalizing a player just because his team may decide to go with a slightly abnormal defensive alignment, much like the Yankees do.

and players should be debited for not making a play on a groundball, even if the play is made

I absolutely disagree with this. If teams choose to position their defense in such a way as to allow a particular fielder to make plays in a particular area of the field that another fielder might cover on another team, because it helps them get more outs in their specific context, why would you penalize the other fielder for a play that was an out, just because some other fielder at that position on some other team would have gotten the out instead?

And he was far better than P. Wilson, who many Mets fans preferred.

Not necessarily. Houston's LF, like Fenway's, is overly shortened (by the Crawford boxes), and for that reason Wilson is being penalized for not making plays on balls on which he had absolutely no chance to make a play.

No. You're assuming it's just to cover a weakness, which I don't agree with. How can you expect DJ to make outs on balls that are hit right to SB because of an abnormal defensive alignment? It makes absolutely no sense.

But in reality, because SB has to play closer to the shortstop hole, he can't make a lot of plays down the third base line.

If DJ's and SB's team allows fewer balls to be hit down the 3B line than the typical team, then there's little advantage to having SB play on the line, and tremendous advantage to having SB cheat toward the hole. And if you look at the BIP distribution for DJ's and SB's team, that's exactly what you see - fewer balls hit down the 3B line.

Positioning is a tradeoff - because seven fielders can't cover the entire field, you have to position them in a way as to cut off as many balls as possible. The Yankees - because they tended to allow fewer GBs to be hit down the line, and because they had a right-side skew on defense - chose to position SB and DJ more toward the center of the diamond. They traded off the balls hit right down the line - of which they had fewer than average - for the chance to make easier plays on balls hit toward the left-side hole, and toward the middle of the diamond. And it's hard to argue with the results of that positioning - during the years that SB and DJ were together on the left side of the diamond, the Yankees had one of the top defenses in the AL.

Wrong. Let's try a little example. Our shortstop, DJ, is a terrible fielder, especially going to his right (third-base side). Because of this, our third baseman, SB, has to play towards the shortstop hole. Now DJ is average on balls hit right at him or to his left, and because SB makes the plays DJ doesn't towards the third-base side, DJ ends up looking like an average fielder. But in reality, because SB has to play closer to the shortstop hole, he can't make a lot of plays down the third base line. The team suffers, but if we listen to you, DJ does not.

Except that's bunk, and doesn't happen. The gaps between fielders positioning is such that there is always a hole between them. If the team decides they want balls up the middle fielded instead of balsl down the line, that's not DJ's fault.

You are really missing out on the fundamentals of playing baseball. debiting fielders when the play is made is the wrong way to do it.

I absolutely disagree with this. If teams choose to position their defense in such a way as to allow a particular fielder to make plays in a particular area of the field that another fielder might cover on another team, because it helps them get more outs in their specific context, why would you penalize the other fielder for a play that was an out, just because some other fielder at that position on some other team would have gotten the out instead?

Way to disagree without addressing the problems addressed in my post at all. First of all, this is a difficult question. There is no right answer, there is a better answer and worse. Mathematically correct appeals to me more, especially given that I think it gives better results than what you're suggesting. Also, if the player is abnormally positioned, he should get to more balls to his left. If he's only average there, then yes, he is negative overall, even if he's *actually* negative to his left, and our numbers show him being negative to the right.

No. You're assuming it's just to cover a weakness, which I don't agree with. How can you expect DJ to make outs on balls that are hit right to SB because of an abnormal defensive alignment? It makes absolutely no sense.

He should be getting to more balls to the right if he's not aligned to get the balls to the left. If he's only average to his right after that, he IS a negative fielder.

I thought MGL was debiting fielders too much when other fielders made the play, and since then has changed his system to be more in line with zone rating. He's jokingly accused Chris a few times of hacking into his computer when the zone ratings are published.

I completely disagree that a player should be debited on any play when an out was recorded. If a 3B cuts off a grounder before the ball can reach shortstop and an out is made, how on earth can you give the SS negative credit? You have no way of knowing if he would have made the play or not.

My understanding of Jeter's UZR is that he was horrendous a few years ago, but the last 3 years somewhere between -5 and -15. But I might have missed a revision somewhere.

Look at UZR part one and part two. In part one, with fielders not debited if the play is made, Jeter is -13 in unadjusted UZR. In part two, with fielder's debited whether or not the play is made, Jeter is -26 in unadjusted UZR.

I don't understand. How can you count plays against a player that we didn't attempt to make? If SB is super-quick, he might well be making plays in DJ's zone that DJ would have made -- why are we counting plays AGAINST DJ when we have no idea whether or not he would have made the play himself?

If the 3B cuts off the play then its not a shortstop opportunity. He has no more chance to make this play than on a warning track fly to center field.

If the 3B is playing that far to his left AND you debit SS for outs the 3B makes, then you are rating the shortstop poorly not for anything objective that he does, but for the subjective opinion of his manager, who doesn't think his shortstop is any good.

If the 3B is playing that far to his left AND you debit SS for outs the 3B makes, then you are rating the shortstop poorly not for anything objective that he does, but for the subjective opinion of his manager, who doesn't think his shortstop is any good.

We're rating him for what happens on the field. If a pitching coach screws up a pitcher, we don't say that pitcher should win the Cy Young because he'd be great if not for his pitching coach.

And that's 19 posts since mine without addressing the problem I raised.

While I defer to others with more expertise and experience on most arguments regarding ZR, let me just say that I'm rooting for Dial, Emeigh, and Rally to be right on this one, just because you're being insufferable in this thread, DSG.

There are lots of things of MGL's that you should want to emulate. His people skills are not one of them.

Way to disagree without addressing the problems addressed in my post at all.

Awesome.

First of all, this is a difficult question. There is no right answer, there is a better answer and worse. Mathematically correct appeals to me more, especially given that I think it gives better results than what you're suggesting.

Yes, mathematically correct is more appealing. If there is a BIP turned into an out, it should not be counted as "not turned into an out" - which is what you want to do, and that's just wrong. You are assuming facts not in evidence. The subtleties of infield positioning just isn't as simple as you seem to think.

If DJ's and SB's team allows fewer balls to be hit down the 3B line than the typical team, then there's little advantage to having SB play on the line, and tremendous advantage to having SB cheat toward the hole. And if you look at the BIP distribution for DJ's and SB's team, that's exactly what you see - fewer balls hit down the 3B line.

Bingo. Some people look at the numbers more than they actually score the games - not watch the games, score the games.

Let's try a little example. Our shortstop, DJ, is a terrible fielder, especially going to his right (third-base side). Because of this, our third baseman, SB, has to play towards the shortstop hole. Now DJ is average on balls hit right at him or to his left, and because SB makes the plays DJ doesn't towards the third-base side, DJ ends up looking like an average fielder. But in reality, because SB has to play closer to the shortstop hole, he can't make a lot of plays down the third base line. The team suffers, but if we listen to you, DJ does not.

I'd address this if I understood your problem. SB shifts over -- does DJ shift over? Is DJ now having fewer opportunities to make plays or is he shifting over as well and now making more up-the-middle plays and leaving the to-his-right plays to SB?

For instance, suppose we have a league-average shortstop and a league average third baseman stand in their normal positions. We should expect them both to have league-average ZR.

But if the third baseman stands further off the line than normal while the shortstop stays in his original position, then he will get to some of the balls in the shortstop's assigned zone - and in fact most of the extra balls he will get to would have been hits (through the 5-and-a-half hole). So this new alignment will cause our shortstop to have an above-average zone rating - even though we know that he is a league-average shortstop standing in normal positioning. This is a bad result.

However, DSG's solution is not a particularly good one either. Debiting the shortstop on plays that the third baseman makes is going to overcorrect, as people have pointed out above.

So you're all wrong! :)

I think the solution is to have more finely denoted zones. The way ZR works is that if the play is made 50% of the time, it's in zone, if it's less than 50% of the time, it's out of zone. If it were broken down into 10%, 20%, 30% etc then this would be much less of an issue.

Interesting discussion. Essentially I agree with OneAlou. It seems to me that all of the options require splitting the credit/debit baby, and you simply have to work on developing the most fair way to do it.

It seems to me that all of the options require splitting the credit/debit baby, and you simply have to work on developing the most fair way to do it.

Take a play with a Bonds shift. There's a ball hit to the right of second. The SS picks it up and throws to first. The 2B is standing in short right. This play is debited to the 2B. That's just not right.

But if the third baseman stands further off the line than normal while the shortstop stays in his original position, then he will get to some of the balls in the shortstop's assigned zone - and in fact most of the extra balls he will get to would have been hits (through the 5-and-a-half hole). So this new alignment will cause our shortstop to have an above-average zone rating - even though we know that he is a league-average shortstop standing in normal positioning. This is a bad result.

Actually, in general, no the 3B will NOT get to balls assigned to the SS. This is the most common misunderstanding of defense I see. The 5.5 hole ISN"T the SS area. Those balls would be hits anyway. There is a gap between fielders - those are the plays the shifted fielders make - not plays that make up for a "normal" position.

If the shortstop just stayed at his normal position, then yes, it likely would inflate his zone rating. But what if the shortstop shifted as well? Then all you've done is change the location of the hole. If the hit distribution is spread evenly, then you haven't changed a thing as far as fielder ratings or team success.

I don't think there's much value in bunching players towards the 5-6 hole, you are opening up bigger holes by closing that one.

Well, you might change their zone ratings, due to the treatment of balls in zone and balls out of zone. A UZR type system should rate the players the same, assuming they are getting the same number (just different location) of balls that they were before the switch. And that is without debiting fielders when a teammate makes the play.

If the shortstop just stayed at his normal position, then yes, it likely would inflate his zone rating.

No, it wouldn't, because the 3B doesn't make plays in the SS zone. He makes them in the "no man's land". Sheesh.

But what if the shortstop shifted as well? Then all you've done is change the location of the hole. If the hit distribution is spread evenly, then you haven't changed a thing as far as fielder ratings or team success.

True - but if the 3B shifts, what happens to the balls down the line? Suddenly he can't make those plays. Fielders have limited range - they have been standing in the same spots for about 130 years- they are pretty close to optimized.

No, it wouldn't, because the 3B doesn't make plays in the SS zone. He makes them in the "no man's land". Sheesh.

Its probably not a big problem, what you say is true for most ground balls, but on some slow hit grounders the 3B absolutely ranges into the shortstop zone. Its not that common a play but I've seen it.

Come to think of it though, on plays like that it probably doesn't matter too much where the 3B starts from relative to short. It usually happens when the 3B is playing shallow and the SS is playing deep.

Come to think of it though, on plays like that it probably doesn't matter too much where the 3B starts from relative to short. It usually happens when the 3B is playing shallow and the SS is playing deep.

Actually, in general, no the 3B will NOT get to balls assigned to the SS. This is the most common misunderstanding of defense I see. The 5.5 hole ISN"T the SS area. Those balls would be hits anyway. There is a gap between fielders - those are the plays the shifted fielders make - not plays that make up for a "normal" position.

So, the bad result simply doesn't occur.

No, Chris, because not every ball hit is a screaming liner. The softer a ball is hit, the more time the fielder has to get to the ball and so the further he can "range." If the third baseman is playing off the line, then sure any really hard hit balls he gets to wouldn't have been in the shorstops zone anyway. But he will get to soft or medium hit ground balls on the edge of the shortstop's zone. That's why I talk about more finely granulated zones as being one way to deal with this problem.

If the shortstop just stayed at his normal position, then yes, it likely would inflate his zone rating. But what if the shortstop shifted as well? Then all you've done is change the location of the hole. If the hit distribution is spread evenly, then you haven't changed a thing as far as fielder ratings or team success.

I don't think there's much value in bunching players towards the 5-6 hole, you are opening up bigger holes by closing that one.

I'm not getting into why a team might do this. But they might - perhaps for perfectly logical reasons e.g. they see few groundballs down the line. You see slightly differing infield alignments across the league. And you can see what the effect is going to be.

Well, I know that multiple Brewer fans around here mentioned Weeks improvement. I personally believe that Rickie just came out of the gates in a fielding slump and like any such trough it passed. I don't know if you can break his season into segments but if so I think you will an average or small "plus" in June/July.

Now, I will state again for the record that I think the Brewers still need to consider moving him OFF second base. NOT because he will be a liability defensively. But because of his body type AND the nature of second base (increased chance of injury) makes Weeks a casualty in waiting.

I fear that he will spend more time on the injury list simply because his physical attributes are not conducive to long-term health at the position. Meaning he has the physical SKILLS to play the position but not the body TYPE.

That probably makes no sense. But having watched so many guys try to play this game I see Weeks and I see owie after owie somewhat akin to Rickey Henderson. Rickey could mostly stay in the lineup playing left field. Weeks couldn't do the same if at second base.

The 5.5 hole ISN"T the SS area. Those balls would be hits anyway. There is a gap between fielders - those are the plays the shifted fielders make - not plays that make up for a "normal" position.

So, the bad result simply doesn't occur.

I was almost convinced, then I looked back at the grid. The 5-6 hole is only zone G, as 3B covers c-f and SS h-m. At the baselines that's only 8 feet wide, at the edge of the grass I'm guessing maybe 12 feet.

So if 3B can occasionally get grounders in the hole, then a shift that the average fan might not even notice could put them at the edges of the shortstop zone.

Look at UZR part one and part two. In part one, with fielders not debited if the play is made, Jeter is -13 in unadjusted UZR. In part two, with fielder's debited whether or not the play is made, Jeter is -26 in unadjusted UZR.

I found the UZR parts 1 and 2. Its data from the 2002 season. The change with Jeter is not whether MGL debits or not. The difference is all the other adjustments - parks, handedness of batter/pitcher, runners on base, speed of batted ball, etc.

If debiting him on plays made by others is in there, I missed it. But it most certainly is not the only reason Jeter went from -13 to -26.

There also seems to be a mix of goals with these defensive metrics. How "good" a fielder "is" is not the same as how many plays did he make THIS YEAR, given the context he existed in. If you put Ozzie Smith in the dugout, he won't score well in the fielding metrics.

Fielding metrics alone may tell you how well a player DID. But I think there is a boatload of other contextual factors that make up how good a player IS. That's why I think it is off base to use these metrics to debate who the "best is".

If he's only average there, then yes, he is negative overall, even if he's *actually* negative to his left, and our numbers show him being negative to the right.

Suppose that you, an average fielder at SS, see 40 balls: 10 to the left side of the zone, 20 to the middle, and 10 to the right side. Suppose that you, as an average fielder, convert seven balls on the left side, 18 in the middle, and seven on the right side into outs. You've gotten 32 of 40 balls (.800).

Now suppose that you shift the fielders so that SB covers the left side of the zone. SB gets eight of the ten balls hit there, instead of seven, and you, even though you are shifted right, still get only 7 of 10 balls to your right and 18 of 20 in the middle. Because the two balls that SB didn't get are charged against you, not SB (they're in your zone, after all), you are now credited with 25 plays out of 32 balls (.781) - even though as a team you've gotten one more out on those 40 balls, you look like a worse fielder (and in fact, you are, because moving to the right you should have been able to get more than 7/10 of balls to your right). But if you are also penalized for the eight plays that SB did make, you're now at 25/40 (.625) - and you look like the worst fielder of all time even though your team made one more out on those forty balls.

Now change it: suppose you made 8 of 10 plays to your right and still made 18 of 20 plays in the middle of the zone. You still get penalized for the two balls that SB missed, so now you're 26/32 (.813) - which makes you look better than average, which you might very well be, considering that you were still able to make all of the middle-zone plays. If you are penalized for the 8 plays that SB made, though, you're 26/40 (.650) - and again you look terrible.

I'm exaggerating the effect; the real effects are almost certainly *much* smaller than this. But the penalty is still very real - even though the overall defense is helped, the net effect of transferring plays from one fielder to another is to make the fielder from whom plays are transferred look worse than he really is if he's penalized for every play transferred to the other fielder.

Suppose the net effect of moving SB and DJ to the right is to allow SB to convert two plays in DJ's zone, at the expense of DJ making two fewer plays there. Remember the original concept was 7/10 for DJ left, 18/20 middle, 7/10 right. We've transferred two plays to SB, so the net result now is that SB is 2/2 there, DJ 5/8 (he still gets penalized for the balls that get through). DJ still goes 18/20 middle, 7/10 right. DJ overall is 30/38 (.789) instead of 32/40 (.800). If DJ is penalized for not making the two plays that SB made, DJ is 30/40, or .750. Note that this would be true even if DJ were an average SS that didn't move at all, and SB just happened to make two plays on balls that DJ might otherwise have fielded and converted to outs.

The problem we have in zone-based ratings is *accurately* assigning penalities for plays not made when no error is awarded. Right now, what we do is assign those penalities based upon an assertion that "the average fielder in this position makes on out on this ball *x* percent of the time". That probably works well enough if the BIP distribution and the ballpark dimensions are more or less normal, but in a number of cases (the Yankees of the late '90s and early '00s being a prime example), they are not.

I don't think there's much value in bunching players towards the 5-6 hole, you are opening up bigger holes by closing that one.

You might be opening up a bigger hole - but if it's one that teams are less able to use to their advantage, you might still wind up ahead of the game.

Why do teams use infield shifts against Barry Bonds, Carlos Delgado, Jim Thome, et. al.? Infield shifts open up bigger holes (AKA the whole left side of the infield), but teams do it because the risk of doing that is smaller than the likely cost of a normal defense against those hitters. You'd much rather see one of those guys bump a single to left.

If we assume for a moment that the shortstop's lack of range is the only reason why they move the third baseman to the left,
the net cost of the shortstop's lack of range would, according to me, be the balls hit in the third baseman's zone, between him and the line, that he would have turned into outs had he played at the normal 3B position. So, even if it would be very difficult to apply in practice, wouldn't it be better, in theory, to add these balls to the shortstop's "responsibility", instead of the balls that were actually fielded by the third baseman in the shortstop's zone?

I was almost convinced, then I looked back at the grid. The 5-6 hole is only zone G, as 3B covers c-f and SS h-m. At the baselines that's only 8 feet wide, at the edge of the grass I'm guessing maybe 12 feet.

So if 3B can occasionally get grounders in the hole, then a shift that the average fan might not even notice could put them at the edges of the shortstop zone.

So we're suggesting the system is wrong for three plays a year for one 3B? That's not sensible. The system works, because in the vast majority (>99%), infielders do not rob chances from other IF.